F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – indennità di formazione – ———-F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 December 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - indennità di formazione – ----------F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 December 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the Player E I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 21 January 1994, was registered with its affiliated club, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 1 September 2012 until 30 June 2013 as a professional on loan from the club from country F, Club G (hereinafter: Club G). 2. The football season in country B lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 4. Furthermore, with respect to the information contained in the TMS, the player was permanently registered with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 16 July 2013 as a professional and said club belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 5. On 13 July 2015, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation for the subsequent transfer of the player as a professional from Club G to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting the payment of the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 August 2013. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the loan agreement was terminated on 1 March 2013. 6. In its reply, the Respondent firstly argued that if the claim was received only after 16 July 2015, it is prescribed and consequently inadmissible. 7. Moreover, the Respondent highlighted that according to Art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players only the former club is entitled to training compensation in case of a subsequent transfer, which in this case is Club G. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the player transferred between two countries belonging to the European Union and consequently the conditions of Art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer for Players have to be met. Therefore, no training compensation is due as both, the employment contract between the Claimant and the player, as well as the loan agreement between Club G and the Claimant were terminated before their expiry and no contract offer was made to the player by the Claimant. 9. Additionally, the Respondent pointed out that the special provisions for transfers within the EU/EEA have to be applied in a strict way as they were implemented in order to protect the free movement of workers within the European Union. 10. Alternatively, the Respondent stressed that if the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber should come to the result that training compensation is due, the amount should be reduced as it is clearly disproportionate with respect to the current financial situation of the Respondent. In this respect, the Respondent highlighted that even though it played in the second division at the time the player was registered with the Respondent, it got relegated to the third league for the 2014/2015 season which resulted in a significant decrease of its income. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 13 July 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which states that the DRC shall examine its jurisdiction in light of art. 24 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. ii. in connection with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC is competent to decide on the present matter relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 July 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. However, the Chamber reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations on the basis of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled the content of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The present claim having been lodged in front of the DRC on 13 July 2015 and the registration of the player with the Respondent having occurred on 16 July 2013, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. 5. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player, born on 21 January 1994, was registered with the Claimant as a professional on a loan basis from Club G for the period between 1 September 2012 and 1 March 2013, date on which the loan agreement was terminated. 7. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 30,000 indicating that the player was transferred as a professional from Club G to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and that the period that the player was registered with Club G as well as with the Claimant itself on loan should be considered as one entire timeframe. 8. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the Claimant was not the player’s former club. Also, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not comply with the conditions established in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations as it terminated the loan contract before the expiry and did not offer the player a new employment contract. 9. In this context, the DRC highlighted that the main issue in the present matter is whether or not a club that accepted a professional on loan is entitled to receive training compensation when, after terminating the contract of the loan, the professional returns to his club of origin, and thereafter, is transferred from the club of origin to a club belonging to another association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 10. In consideration of the above-mentioned issue, the DRC referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 11. Furthermore, the DRC referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 12. With due consideration to the above, the DRC stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the DRC’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 13. In other words, the Chamber emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definite or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club. 14. In this respect and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The DRC was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club. 15. Following the above, the Chamber pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation thus arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 16. What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant was not the player’s former club stricto sensu, however, the DRC pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with Club G, should be considered as one entire timeframe. Any other interpretation would lead to the situation in which clubs accepting a player on loan would never be entitled to receive training compensation, even if they contribute to the training and education of players. 17. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU) /European Economic Area (EEA). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as lex specialis. 18. However, in this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s). 19. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 20. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the DRC referred to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 21. In continuation, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 21 January 1994 and was registered with the Claimant as from 1 September 2012 until 1 March 2013. 22. Equally, the DRC recalled that according to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 July 2013. 23. Furthermore, and considering art. 3 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the DRC concluded that the effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to 6 months of the 2012/2013 season. 24. Consequently, in light of the above-mentioned considerations and considering the amount claimed by the Claimant, the DRC decided to accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 30,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 25. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent had, on a subsidiary note, requested the Chamber to consider a possible reduction of the amount of training compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent is of the opinion that the payment of training compensation amounting to EUR 30,000 would not be proportionate given that the Respondent relegated to a lower division for the 2014/2015 season. 26. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber may review disputes concerning the amount of training compensation payable and shall have discretion to adjust this amount if it is clearly disproportionate to the case under review. In this regard, the members of the Chamber were, however, eager to emphasize that such possibility allowed by the Regulations would, in any case, have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. 27. In this context, the DRC underlined that the Respondent had not substantiated its request with any pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In fact, the Respondent merely alleged that its income decreased significantly in the 2014/2015 due to its relegation to a lower league. In this respect, the DRC was eager to point out that the player was registered with the Respondent on 16 July 2013, i.e. during the 2013/2014 season, and that, therefore, the obligation to pay training compensation arose during the 2013/2014 season and not during the 2014/2015 season. 28. On account of these considerations and in the absence of any well-founded arguments and documentation in support of the Respondent’s request to adjust the amount, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber had no alternative but to decide that the amount of training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant could not be adjusted and that therefore the amount of EUR 30,000 is payable. 29. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 16 August 2013, until the date of effective payment. 30. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 31. In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 30,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 32. As a result, taking into account the particularities of the present matter as well as that the claim of the Claimant is accepted, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 3,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 16 August 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives